Anthony Giddens 在为《新教伦理与资本主义精神》所作序言中总结， Max Webber 分析欧洲资本主义起源的视角和方法也被他用在对其它文明的分析，包括中国。 Giddens 的序里这样讲：

An ethic which stresses rational adjustment to the world “as it is” could not have generated a moral dynamism in economic activity comparable to that characteristic of the spirit of European capitalism.

这段话吸引我的地方除了对 Webber 的思想和方法的反思，还让我忽然想到 80 年代看过的一部电视记录片《河觞》，以及其后中国社会的走向。

河觞将中国的社会发展概括为 “ 黄色 ” 的农业文明，与欧洲的蓝色的海洋文明相对，并以这两者在文化上的差异来解释东西方社会发展方向的不同，其中所强调的中国文化的转型也正是基于此类反思。

必须承认，当年上高中的我对此书此片还是非常崇拜的。但是以现在的眼光重新审视，我发现河觞对于文化的总结，无论中西，都粗糙之极。而这种 Webber 式的以文化特征解释社会结构转型的方法一旦用于比较研究，它的潜在的危险实在大于它对我们理解中西文化的贡献。具体的说，危险有二。

一是资本主义化，借用官方的词语，就是全盘西化。

To speculate for a moment, given the Chinese government was already leaning toward a liberal corporate regime (however hard it was to be observed at the time being), could it be possible that even without the advocacy of the Chinese liberal intellectuals, or even without the 1989 students movement, China would still move toward what those intellectuals were advocating, i.e., a state controlled capitalist regime? In other words, the tightened control between 1989 and 1992 was only a hesitation, while the speeding up after 1992 only resumed what was interrupted in 1989.

Note: so what China has gone through was exactly what Gramsci described as the "Americanization". In the process of becoming a corporate regime, i.e., a state controlled capitalism, the very first step and sign of transformation is the unemployment of large amount of workers from former state owned enterprises, so as to create the “free” labour required by capitalism. Before this, Chinese intellectuals were already advocating values associated with capitalist free market (something very similar to Webber’s analysis of the origin of capitalism). The 1989 incident only slowed down an already ongoing process, which the participants obviously did not recognize.

也就是说，当年党内外批资产阶级自由化和全盘西化，只是权利机构内部的势力对抗，和资本主义或西化无关。由后来的实践看，当年所批判的后来十几年间一一实现。实践是检验真理的唯一标准，这句话至少在世纪末的中国显示了它不无讽刺的绝对性。

二是本土文化在经历了文革的毁灭后在向资本主义转型阶段被大肆制造古代神话的狂热的民族主义所代替。此时我们看到的民族主义的复兴其实是经济军事日渐强大后对于能够象征自己不断膨胀的自信心的象征物的找寻。说白了，就是精神空虚下的一场文化复辟。

资本主义化 / 西化，与民族主义只是表面上矛盾，他们实际上是同一种心理的两种表现。民族主义作为对西化的回应与西化建立在同样的逻辑基础之上，可以说，民族主义实际上是伪民族主义，在利益相关时可以立刻转化为它的对立面：西方资本主义。这一点，可以从无数高举爱国主义拥护共产党而又不愿意留在家乡做贡献的海外“小将”身上清楚看到。

细想一下，中国的知识分子在这个过程中都做了些什么呢？